[straube]

I've been told that some folks transfer into a 4-cd major when they hold a very weak hand. This may be primarily a matchpoint strategy. Not sure. Obviously one couldn't super-accept or compete if pd can do this (so that's one downside) and you'll eat some 4-2 fits, but you'll also wind up in some fits. What do folks think about this? My own thought would be to want responder to have some shape (not 4333 certainly) so that you could have extra chances by ruffing in dummy and improve hand communication.

[MrAce]

straube, on 2014-January-08, 11:56, said:

I've been told that some folks transfer into a 4-cd major when they hold a very weak hand. This may be primarily a matchpoint strategy. Not sure. Obviously one couldn't super-accept or compete if pd can do this
(so that's one downside) and you'll eat some 4-2 fits, but you'll also wind up in some fits. What do folks think about this? My own thought would be to want responder to have some shape (not 4333 certainly) so that
you could have extra chances by ruffing in dummy and improve hand communication.

This was very popular about 15 years ago and i tried it for a while too back then. Maybe it is my subjective experience but it was disaster most of the time. I ended up playing a lot of 4-3 and 4-2 fits and when pd had 4 of them we ended up playing a 4-4 fit at 3 level with my very weak hand.

[1eyedjack]

I don't think that it necessarily follows that superaccepting is off. Sure there are bad things that can happen. But there are also bad things that can happen if you don't superaccept and responder happens to have 5+. You have to weigh them up. You MIGHT then conclude that superaccepting is bad, but I would not just take it as a given.
(Not that I like the method. I do like transferring into a 4 card major but only when responder is strong)

[aguahombre]

This is enlightening. I just assumed anyone who did this either missorted their hand or invented a bad idea on the spot. Now I learn that someone might actually have been advocating the practice.

[FrancesHinden]

I do it occasionally playing a mini NT. If Partner opens a 10-12 1NT and I have, say, xx KQJ10 xxxx xxx, I will transfer to hearts. Various good things can happen:
- next hand might be playing double as diamonds, and can't make a penalty double of 1NT
- partner leads the right thing against their spade contract
- it might play better than 1NT anyway

The big plus is not getting doubled. Even playing double as strong, they will find it harder to to extract when the suit lengths are unknown.

Of course, this is also why people play weak take-outs opposite a mini. Even more than a transfer, a natural 2H in response to 1NT is really tempting.

p.s. I'd open the hand 2H 3rd seat NV as well.

[dustinst22]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-January-08, 14:20, said:

I do it occasionally playing a mini NT. If Partner opens a 10-12 1NT and I have, say, xx KQJ10 xxxx xxx, I will transfer to hearts. Various good things can happen:
- next hand might be playing double as diamonds, and can't make a penalty double of 1NT
- partner leads the right thing against their spade contract
- it might play better than 1NT anyway

The big plus is not getting doubled. Even playing double as strong, they will find it harder to to extract when the suit lengths are unknown.

Of course, this is also why people play weak take-outs opposite a mini. Even more than a transfer, a natural 2H in response to 1NT is really tempting.

p.s. I'd open the hand 2H 3rd seat NV as well.

Interesting. I assume this is alertable?

[CSGibson]

I've done so once. People don't play forcing passes through 2S after a penalty double of a 1N overcall, I decided to transfer to spades in the auction (1♦)-1N-(X) with a 4=2=3=4 yarborough and hope we weren't doubled; it worked in that it played better than NT, and was not penalty doubled.

I consider it a desperate manuever, though, and not a recommended tactic unless its desperate times.

Edit: For clarification, we did not have a run-out system in place, it was not a regular partnership.

[fromageGB]

While with a very poor hand I have transferred to a 4 card major in response to a weak NT, I never have done so since playing strong NT, and I don't think I ever would except as a rescue to a double.

I am amused by the idea of a weak 2 open on a 4-card suit. Even if the card explicitly says "may be variable in third seat", or something similar, I would hope this was treated as a psyche. Or does the card say "may be 4-card"?

[Zelandakh]

straube, on 2014-January-08, 11:56, said:

you'll eat some 4-2 fits

Given the modern trend I would think some 4-1 fits were on the agenda too. For me, transferring with 4 and a weak hand seems like a pretty low % option. Take Chris option for example. Why can't we use our runout system to give partner the choice between the black suits? How stupid do we feel if they show up with 2335 shape? The only time when it can reasonably come into the equation is when the suit is so good it looks like 5 and we are sure that 1NT is bad. Frances' example is one of very few possibilities that comes under such an umbrella.

[Cyberyeti]

fromageGB, on 2014-January-09, 05:32, said:

While with a very poor hand I have transferred to a 4 card major in response to a weak NT, I never have done so since playing strong NT, and I don't think I ever would except as a rescue to a double.

I am amused by the idea of a weak 2 open on a 4-card suit. Even if the card explicitly says "may be variable in third seat", or something similar, I would hope this was treated as a psyche. Or does the card say "may be 4-card"?

We play systemic 4+ card weak 2s in first and third, properly described on the card.

I also played 4 card transfers opposite a wide range no trump (10-15/11-16/14-19 at various times in various seats), but these were invitational+, never bad hands.

[relknes]

With Stayman and a decent runout system in place, I don't see the point of transferring into a 4 card major. The runout covers the weak hands and Stayman covers the inv+ hands, so why is there a need?